PG-13 .. should 13 year olds really be watching some of this stuff?

[ShiroiHikari]

Well, there are always those that you get the impression bribed the ratings board...

Yeah, pretty much.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

In the case of the Dark Knight, there might have been some of that, but Nolan and his crew were really struggling to keep it where it was ratings wise because they knew the movie would be partially dependant on the kid-crowd.

[Davidizer13]

In the case of the Dark Knight, there might have been some of that, but Nolan and his crew were really struggling to keep it where it was ratings wise because they knew the movie would be partially dependant on the kid-crowd.

See, that's the disturbing part, in my eyes. A PG-13 movie shouldn't be partially dependent the "kid-crowd" anyway. They should be aiming for the 13-and-up audience instead, because they're rated as such. I really don't care for ads for/ads for toys based on those movies showing up on what are predominantly children-oriented TV networks. I realize that some of this stuff is already planned before the movie is rated, but they still have an idea about what it's going to be rated beforehand and should market accordingly. Just my thoughts about it.

[mysngoeshere56]

Most times when sexual humor is in a PG-13 movie, I think it's too much for 13-year-olds. Older teens might be better suited to handle it, but not younger ones. It might be a good idea if there was something like PG-15 or 16 since anything PG-13 can either be close to PG or close to R. There seems to be too much of a gap there. I guess the problem would be distinguishing what would make a film PG-15 instead of 13. People would have a wide variety of opinions on that.

I agree. I think I was like, 15 when I saw Transformers.... and I don't think I'd want anybody younger seeing that. I liked the story but the inappropriate stuff kinda ruined it all for me personally.

[Fish and Chips]

I've always felt parental discretion was just what it said on the side of the tin: discretion. Children don't mature at a uniform age, so it's important that the adults in their lives are responsible enough to understand what they can handle. MPAA ratings are like a field guide, not iron absolutes.

It should probably also be noted that the 13 in PG-13 doesn't suggest that it is acceptable for children over 13, merely that it is likely unacceptable for children under 13. I'm not trying to excuse the trends in hollywood morality, just emphasizing that as a mother or a father, it is important to be active and responsible in your child's growth, and this is part of that.

[Bobtheduck]

See, that's the disturbing part, in my eyes. A PG-13 movie shouldn't be partially dependent the "kid-crowd" anyway. They should be aiming for the 13-and-up audience instead, because they're rated as such. I really don't care for ads for/ads for toys based on those movies showing up on what are predominantly children-oriented TV networks. I realize that some of this stuff is already planned before the movie is rated, but they still have an idea about what it's going to be rated beforehand and should market accordingly. Just my thoughts about it.

I feel the same way. For similar reasons, I'm really upset about the PG rating for Half Blood prince... If they have the content the story SHOULD have, it SHOULD have gotten a PG-13, but I know Warner is trying to go for a broader audience... Which I don't agree with. *sigh* The Harry Potter books were supposed to grow with their audience, meaning kids shouldn't be watching HBP anyhow.

Either the content is left in, and it was incorrectly rated, or the content was left out and the story was compromised.

[RandomBurrito]

And that's what really threw me off about the movie was all the sexual humor. Way too much. I handle action and all that pretty well (I just can't handle violence to children and women, that's crossing the line for me). I watched the old Transformers shows and movies and to see all this stuff in there really disappointed me.

And yeah .. I don't wanna be looking at Megan Fox during the whole movie looking inappropriate. I'm a girl and I don't wanna see all that stuff. Sheesh, same with car magazines but I won't go into that (for right now that is, lol).

And when I watched the movie I thought about my younger cousins (cause they went to see it before me) who are guys and I was like "OH MY GOSH THEY SAW THIS?!".

I have noticed that more action movies get the rated R boot than sexual comedy movies, I don't understand that because to me the comedy movies are worse and really stupid in my opinion. Again .. my opinion.

[Davidizer13]

For similar reasons, I'm really upset about the PG rating for Half Blood prince... If they have the content the story SHOULD have, it SHOULD have gotten a PG-13, but I know Warner is trying to go for a broader audience... Which I don't agree with. *sigh* The Harry Potter books were supposed to grow with their audience, meaning kids shouldn't be watching HBP anyhow.

Either the content is left in, and it was incorrectly rated, or the content was left out and the story was compromised.

I felt the same way about the Eragon movie: When I heard the rating for it, I thought, "There's no way they could've made a PG movie out of that book." Of course, that movie had much, MUCH bigger problems than its rating. (Who knows? Maybe their insistence on a PG rating dragged the rest of the movie down to how bad it ended up being.)

...Man, that movie really blew chunks.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I've always felt parental discretion was just what it said on the side of the tin: discretion. Children don't mature at a uniform age, so it's important that the adults in their lives are responsible enough to understand what they can handle. MPAA ratings are like a field guide, not iron absolutes.

It should probably also be noted that the 13 in PG-13 doesn't suggest that it is acceptable for children over 13, merely that it is likely unacceptable for children under 13. I'm not trying to excuse the trends in hollywood morality, just emphasizing that as a mother or a father, it is important to be active and responsible in your child's growth, and this is part of that.

That guy, right there.

[ShiroiHikari]

Fish wins the thread.

[Kaligraphic]

I suppose I'm in the minority here, because I disagree with the "shield kids from all this bad stuff that happens in society" mindset. Historically, children tended to become adults around 12-14. They had experience with society and knew how to interact with it, so it wasn't that big of a shock. Now, we insulate from the real world so much that teenagers, seeing a little of reality, tend to get the impression that their parents have no idea what the real world holds. This causes them to disregard their parents' instruction, and is one of the big causes of teenage rebellion.

Do you not teach your child that sex even exists until they graduate from college? They'll have found out from their middle school classmates, and may already have contracted an STD. Do you not admit to the existence of vulgar language? Changes are, it's their primary language when you're not around. Ignoring things doesn't make them go away, it just means that your child will be unprepared when they encounter them in real life. And they need more than just discipline - they need understanding. If you deny the obvious, they'll think you're out of touch with reality, but if you explain both the obvious and the hidden, they may realize that you know something about life.

Overprotectiveness is not love. It is harmful for a child, and it will lead to pain and suffering in that child's life. Of course, that doesn't mean that you should just have kids watch everything unsupervised, but that they should be guided through progressively broader material, and taught what's really going on.

That said, the purpose of the movie ratings is not to do your parenting for you. It's to warn parents that their attention is necessary. PG-13 doesn't mean that any given 13-year-old in the country is ready for a movie. The PG part doesn't stand for "Perfectly Good", it stands for "Parental Guidance". Allowing children to receive their social guidance from movies, without parental input, is negligent parenting. It's an abdication of the parental responsibility to train their offspring for life in the real world.

[Ante Bellum]

Agreed.
While I like to think of myself as mature enough to handle most of these situations, there are people who should hardly be allowed to walk into a movie theater to begin with unless they happen to go see the next Pixar movie or whatever. But as mentioned before, minors get exposed to some of those things much earlier in their life. I go to a public school, so for a long time I have known about it from people talking in the halls, etc.
I haven't seen Transformers nor do I want to, and the only recent movies I have seen are...Star Trek, that's it. I think it hovered around an R for some scenes but might have settled with the nonexistant PG-16 rating.
There are also movies that might have been created for a younger audience but weren't entirely agreeable. Take the Dark Crystal. Back in the 80's I believe that earned a PG rating, but most parents actually prevented their children from seeing it. The problem is that nowadays most children are able to get their hands on said problematic movies/games. How many people under 17 have you heard talking about playing, say, GTA4? And then there's that "extra" scene someone modded and sent around cyberspace. Hackers, modders and programmers are making a lot of things more than they were originally meant to be.
(Mods, cut this if you see it fit. I didn't see anything about it, not sure about whether or not it may be something I shouldn't talk about, so I'm just going to take a precaution and say, this might be better to skip for anyone who doesn't understand basic medicines or doesn't want to bother with my comparison.) Another thing I am going to add is, think of movies like legal OTCs. An aspirin might be G, Tylenol a PG, cough syrup a PG-13 (the more minor ones, like children's medicine), and powerful cold medicine an R. Most kids could probably walk in and get some aspirin or maybe a Tylenol, right? (Not too sure on this one, some laws are different.) Cough syrup made for children may be a little harder to get. Powerful cold medicine is ONLY sold to adults over 18 around here, because people DO abuse it. Of course, with that being said, which one might a kid go for? But both can be found in a lot of homes, which makes it easier for a kid to get their hands on said medicine. Although this may be pretty irrelevant to the entire topic, all I'm saying is that some determined kids can get a lot. Whether it be movies or not, a friend, relative, or an airheaded clerk can all be "gateways" for a kid. (Also, because they've been featuring public service announcements about these dangers I thought I'd reiterate it a bit. It is a growing problem so while it may not be in perspective the idea is kind of the same: do you want your kids to get more questionable content without your permission?)

ANYWAYS, I shall get back on topic.
The idea is that while the media may not be very...smart...about their ratings, they are not able to take the full attack when it comes to censorship. That's up to the parents to decide whether or not their eleven year old can watch a PG-13 movie that's been marked for questionable content. It's also up to people close to the children to have good judgement or to seek permission from parents.
*looks up* Uh, yeah, before I start repeating myself anymore I'm just going to stop.

[Radical Dreamer]

I suppose I'm in the minority here, because I disagree with the "shield kids from all this bad stuff that happens in society" mindset. Historically, children tended to become adults around 12-14. They had experience with society and knew how to interact with it, so it wasn't that big of a shock. Now, we insulate from the real world so much that teenagers, seeing a little of reality, tend to get the impression that their parents have no idea what the real world holds. This causes them to disregard their parents' instruction, and is one of the big causes of teenage rebellion.

That may be "historically speaking," but I must disagree if you're saying we should show children all of the bad things that are in the world at a young age where they may not be able to handle it. Frankly, I'm willing to bet that, historically, people didn't know a whole lot about child psychology, and didn't know how certain things might affect them later in life. All this being said, our culture is certainly not structured in the same way as that of History, so I hardly think the same rules apply. In our culture where children are ideally meant to be children and not fully fledged adults at age 12, I have a hard time understanding how this is relevant.

Do you not teach your child that sex even exists until they graduate from college? They'll have found out from their middle school classmates, and may already have contracted an STD. Do you not admit to the existence of vulgar language? Changes are, it's their primary language when you're not around. Ignoring things doesn't make them go away, it just means that your child will be unprepared when they encounter them in real life. And they need more than just discipline - they need understanding. If you deny the obvious, they'll think you're out of touch with reality, but if you explain both the obvious and the hidden, they may realize that you know something about life.

I honestly don't see what this has to do with not letting a child watch a raunchy PG-13 movie. There's a vast difference between understanding that the world is full of sin and choosing entertainment that glorifies that sort of behavior to a child who may not discern right from wrong at such a young age. And for the record, I was not sheltered as a child, and yet I somehow managed to reach the age of 20 without an STD or vulgarities consuming my language. What're the odds?

Overprotectiveness is not love. It is harmful for a child, and it will lead to pain and suffering in that child's life. Of course, that doesn't mean that you should just have kids watch everything unsupervised, but that they should be guided through progressively broader material, and taught what's really going on.

Using parental discretion to say "you are not allowed to watch this movie because I've deemed it inappropriate for your age" is hardly being overprotective. Sex happens in real life, so it's suddenly okay for a 5 year-old to watch it, as long as you explain what's going on? I find that faulty on a number of levels. Naturally parents should be very aware of their children's entertainment and they should guide them through the parts that could be misunderstood, but by no means does that mean they should be so open to allow some material into their children's minds where they can help it.

That said, the purpose of the movie ratings is not to do your parenting for you. It's to warn parents that their attention is necessary. PG-13 doesn't mean that any given 13-year-old in the country is ready for a movie. The PG part doesn't stand for "Perfectly Good", it stands for "Parental Guidance". Allowing children to receive their social guidance from movies, without parental input, is negligent parenting. It's an abdication of the parental responsibility to train their offspring for life in the real world.

I agree with this, but as a final thought I'll say that just because a movie is released with objectionable content does not mean that a parent is obligated to allow their child to see it while explaining all the details of what's going on in each offensive scene. Honestly, it's up to the parents' discretion to decide what is and is not appropriate for their children to see while their children are unable to discern these things for themselves.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

You're not exactly in the minority, Kali. I do agree, and while I don't think we should toss our children in to a Cesspool to teach them about stuff, we need to at least make sure that when they are exposed to it - and have no doubt they will be whether we will it or not - we are there to explain it, put it in to context, and guide them through the learning process.

This is just metaphor, but parents don't prevent children from riding bikes because they know it will hurt them. They teach them, and if they fall they bandage the child up and continue to teach them how to do it so that next time they won't fall.

I went to a parochial school, so I've seen the results of overprotective parenting, and a refusal to not just aknowledge that the stuff exists, but not even help them with it. A head-in-the ground approach to parenting will result in one of two ways that I've seen (as the vast majority of my classmates were handled in this fashion by parents an faculty). Either a) they walk in to the world overly naiive and a walking target or b) (and far more likely) they find out about it on their own, they handle it on their own, and it overwhealms them. A lot of classmates were destroyed by sex, drugs, etc or came very close to it because their parents simply preferred to pretend the stuff doesn't exist.

[ShiroiHikari]

Kali, I agree with you about overprotecting kids. I was overprotected; fat lot of good it did me. Sure, I didn't get into drugs or go sleeping around, but it wasn't because I learned about that stuff from my parents. I learned it all at school. Being overprotected made me resent my mother. Also, I was very close with a girl whose mother was overprotective and that girl ended up making some huge mistakes when she was turned loose in the world.

I do think that if a kid is going to see objectionable content in entertainment, the parents should be there watching it with them so they can explain-- lovingly --what's going on. And parents should know their children well enough to know what's okay for each child and what's not.

[LadyRushia]

I do think that if a kid is going to see objectionable content in entertainment, the parents should be there watching it with them so they can explain-- lovingly --what's going on. And parents should know their children well enough to know what's okay for each child and what's not.

This. I know a couple who does this with their kids. The oldest of them is 12, I think, but they still watch some PG-13 movies together. Why? Because those kids are actually very mature for their age and that's a result of their parents explaining things to them when they felt it was appropriate. Not only that, but their parents have also given them a Biblical understanding of these things. Essentially, their parents have explained to them the truth about mostly everything before their peers could get to them. That may sound strange, but for these kids it's worked well for them. Like others have said, it's about knowing your kids well and making the judgement on when to talk about these things with them. I completely disagree with overprotection; I knew a girl in high school who was so sheltered that her mother did her college applications for her. What I do like, however, is explaining things to your kids. Don't just tell them that certain things or aspects of things are bad, tell them why.

[jadeTheshade]

I honestly don't see what this has to do with not letting a child watch a raunchy PG-13 movie. There's a vast difference between understanding that the world is full of sin and choosing entertainment that glorifies that sort of behavior to a child who may not discern right from wrong at such a young age.

all i can say to that is :AMEN

i tend to use ratings for myself as well and have generally found that if my little sister and brother shouldn't watch it, i probably shouldn't either.
yes i understand people use bad language in real life. should i then go and fill my mind with it?
yes, sex happens. should you then go and fill your mind with perverted images?
yes gore happens. do you really want to see it?

i forget where, but there is a verse in the Bible that says 'i will set no wicked thing before my eyes' i think it applies to T.V.


i had a whole bunch more to say but i have somehow now forgot what it was... oh well...

[Dante]

I agree... but then again I'm 23 years old and hence prone to much ageism... seeing as 13 year olds can't really argue for themselves on this forum (I think) it's not really fair to them.

The explosive violence end of the spectrum, sure, then I think we go over-board (they see worse turning on the news every night). But there are a lot of ill-placed morals in these stories that give a bad view-point of society. I think PG-13 media of today for instance places far too little value on the structure of marriage or the responcibilities inherent in sexual relationships. This is reinforced when I see teenagers jay-walking with their babies accross the busiest streets of Flagstaff in prime lunch-hour (with flocks of cars going both ways, he didn't even wait for a break in traffic).

And while I've noted that the violence concerns are over-board in my opinion, I will note that not enough value is placed on human life in media of today. I'm fine with violence in movies today, but let's show what it really does. Violence isn't some solution for a fix-all against bad guys, it flies both ways. If you have a main character using violence to achieve their ends, then at least have some die, or worse spend a portion of the movie focusing on their return back to real life once it leaves them wheelchair-bound or stuck eating out of a tube. Or if they do survive, at least let the consequence of their decision hit home. They killed somebody, even if that was a bad-guy, that technically makes THEM a murderer... There are a lot of ways violence can lead, but rarely do they lead to the happy endings shown in movies.

That might be a bit tramatic for the youngins but at least it might give them a better world view (and not one where they believe that sex is free and without consequence and violence only hurts the opposing party). It would also make the movies more interesting and I'd be more interested in seeing them (it at least varies the plot so I'm not sure WHAT will actually happen at the end of the movie).

[Nate]

In the case of the Dark Knight, there might have been some of that, but Nolan and his crew were really struggling to keep it where it was ratings wise because they knew the movie would be partially dependant on the kid-crowd.

That bugs me, and I'm also bothered by the fact that toys for 6-8 year olds are marketed on a movie that was a borderline R-rated movie.

The reason it bothers me is because there's no purpose. You want to market toys to kids? Okay, make the movie a bit more kid-friendly. McDonald's actually stopped marketing Happy Meals featuring Batman Returns way back when that movie came out. Why? They said the sex and violence was over the top for kids, and refused to market to them based on that. That's friggin' integrity right there.

It doesn't seem to matter these days though. There's enough comic book fanboys and the market for figures is big enough that they shouldn't have to depend on toys. And seeing as how toys are just "extra profit" since the movies almost always recoup their costs at the box office, they're only necessary to line the pockets of corporate CEOs. So they're unnecessary, especially given the kind of movie Dark Knight was.

And yeah, there's toys meant for six year olds in stores based on Transformers 2. Is anyone here honestly going to say a six year old should see a movie with quite a few sexual references?

This is why I hate Michael Bay. This is why I wish he hadn't worked on the sequel, or even the original. People were going to go see Transformers to see, well, TRANSFORMERS. It doesn't need sexual jokes, it doesn't need Megan Fox stripping, it doesn't need ANY of that, it needs robots fighting and that's it. There was zero reason to make it more "mature," the nerd factor and the kid factor was going to be more than enough to make the movie a success. He only did it because he's Michael effin' Bay and that's how he rolls. :|

Take the Dark Crystal. Back in the 80's I believe that earned a PG rating

Part of the reason for that though is that the PG-13 rating didn't exist until 1984. Gremlins and Temple of Doom were the two movies that made the MPAA finally agree that there needed to be an intermediate rating between PG and R, so PG-13 was created.

The problem is that nowadays most children are able to get their hands on said problematic movies/games. How many people under 17 have you heard talking about playing, say, GTA4?

The reason they're not able to is because they're unrestrictive ratings. The ESRB and MPAA are guidelines, they cannot be enforced by law because that would be giving governmental authority to a non-governmental agency. If you read the description of the R rating, it says that no one under 17 is admitted without an adult. However, if a movie theater sells a ticket to a 13 year old for an R-rated movie, they won't get sued, and the person who sold it won't go to jail. They'll get fired probably, but they can't be prosecuted.

The only ratings that carry legal weight are AO for games and NC-17 for movies. Since these ratings indicate explicit sexual content, they fall under pornography laws, which of course means they're illegal for people under 18.

The reason why kids can get their hands on these movies/games is, at least some of the time, like it or not, because of their parents. Stores have gotten very good about carding people when purchasing M or R rated things. However, and many store clerks have said this, there are parents who when the clerk tries to tell a parent about the content in Grand Theft Auto, will just say "My little boy wants it so I'm going to buy it for him" and not even care.

And again, remember that the ratings are just that, a guideline. There's no law prohibiting the sale of an M rated game like GTA to a kid, because there can't be, because of how the force of law works in this country.

And then there's that "extra" scene someone modded and sent around cyberspace. Hackers, modders and programmers are making a lot of things more than they were originally meant to be.

The scene in San Andreas wasn't modded. You can't mod a console game. Everything in the Hot Coffee scene was already on the disc, it just required a Gameshark or Action Replay to unlock it. Playing through the normal game, that scene was unable to be viewed.

With that extra scene, the game was going to be AO rather than M...and actually, after the news came out that it was unlockable, the rating DID change to AO (though Rockstar said retailers could exchange their AO copies for M rated copies, discs with the content removed).

The problem was that the content was there, but Rockstar didn't allow it to be accessed. Rather than showing the ESRB, knowing that third party cheat devices are popular these days, they tried to hide it. Then they denied it when the news broke. They should have taken it off the disc completely, but they didn't.

Anyway like I said, you can't mod a console game, so it isn't the modding community's fault. Hackers, I guess can be blamed. XD

[Ante Bellum]

Right, hackers, that's what I meant. I've played mostly online games lately though so I hear more about modding than hacking...(although modders can do stuff to online games)
But that extra scene actually generated publicity for them, right? Maybe it was purposefully left in, I'm not entirely sure but it was big news in the end.
It's true that R and M ratings aren't enforceable, and that parents are to blame a lot of the time. The more careless nature keeps getting passed down. I remember that my brother wanted Halo when it was first around, an the clerk warned us about the violence. After ensuring that my brother was mature enough for it my mom bought it, but we were able to handle it, just like Call of Duty or other war games. It's had no effect on us, but people keep blaming games for causing violent behavior. It's all in one's mentality.
What I meant by my Dark Crystal reference was that it was meant for a younger audience, even though it was a PG, and back then parents stopped their children from watching it. I mean, it was a Jim Henson movie! With puppets! If parents were more like that now that could be considered overprotective, but in some ways it might have helped.
The guidelines that are ratings are made by a group of people, but there are sites where individuals give their ideas on movies/games/shows. I've seen one where parents rate things for other parents to review before buying for their kids.
The E-10 rating didn't seem to hurt the game ratings at all, it probably wouldn't hurt to add PG-16 to movies, in my opinion.

[CrimsonRyu17]

All I can say is: Snow White. Yeah, the Disney movie. That crap scared the holy shizzle out of me yet I could sit and watch Jurassic Park all day when I was little. Same thing with Pac-man back when they were still arcade game machines. Could play Street Fighter for hours while Pac-man horrified me and still kinda does.

Those ratings did NOT help me at all.

So I think it all depends on if the kid can handle it. Yes, some things go way too far especially nowadays, which is why I think we shouldn't rely on a flawed rating system. Parents should figure out what their kid can handle, see the movie first, and then A-okay it or not.

[RandomBurrito]

Originally Quoted by Nate
This is why I hate Michael Bay. This is why I wish he hadn't worked on the sequel, or even the original. People were going to go see Transformers to see, well, TRANSFORMERS. It doesn't need sexual jokes, it doesn't need Megan Fox stripping, it doesn't need ANY of that, it needs robots fighting and that's it. There was zero reason to make it more "mature," the nerd factor and the kid factor was going to be more than enough to make the movie a success. He only did it because he's Michael effin' Bay and that's how he rolls. :|

Yeah, exactly. When the first Transformers came out I was hoping for fighting robots and action and all that. Though, the first one did have alot of action and it didn't bother me as much but this one .. too much even for me.

Now, I have had somewhat of a sheltered life (not to where my parents were like "if it has cussing you can't watch it" kind of thing. My parents explained to me what certain things were, how it should be handled and even what the Bibles says about it too.

Another Quote from Nate
The reason it bothers me is because there's no purpose. You want to market toys to kids? Okay, make the movie a bit more kid-friendly. McDonald's actually stopped marketing Happy Meals featuring Batman Returns way back when that movie came out. Why? They said the sex and violence was over the top for kids, and refused to market to them based on that. That's friggin' integrity right there.

Agreed. Toys shouldn't be marketed for children if the show/movie/game is not made for children.
And what also bothered me was that I had seen small children at the theatre when I watched transformers 2. And I even remember one of them go "ew" on some parts. Shoot, I was thinking "ew" too.

I do think that they do a good job of rating games. I have played some games and think to myself "This could've been at least E10".

[ilikegir33]

Agreed. Toys shouldn't be marketed for children if the show/movie/game is not made for children.
And what also bothered me was that I had seen small children at the theatre when I watched transformers 2. And I even remember one of them go "ew" on some parts. Shoot, I was thinking "ew" too.

I do think that they do a good job of rating games. I have played some games and think to myself "This could've been at least E10".

Yeah. I do not think kids should be exposed to a Leatherface action figure or something like that.

I think the film rating system is not working that well, though. There are some films that were rated PG now that would have been rated PG-13 a few years ago, such as Marley And Me. I swear, the ending was very heartwrenching, too much for a PG-rated film. Also, some PG-13 rated films should be rated R, or if appealed, should have kept the R rating. Year One for instance. That movie was terrible and irreverent.

However, there are a few R-rated films that should be seen by people under 17, such as Billy Elliot (which should have definitely been rated PG-13 even though it had a lot of bad language; it's just a great film for children), as well as Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker and The Passion of the Christ.

This is why I think we should take a cue from the British film rating system (the BBFC) and make a PG-15 or R-15 rating to rate films that are too strong for a PG-13 but aren't strong enough for an R. I rest my case.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

PG doesn't equal emotional impact of that sort, it measures potentially harmful content. Yes, Marley and Me was a heartwrenching movie, but the system isn't designed to judge that material. Bad stuff happens. I mean, think about Bambi, think about Fox and the hound, think about any Don Bluth film from the 1980's. Bad stuff happens, and it may be good for Kids to see that from time to time. Don't throw them infront of that particular bus, but it isn't bad for kids to see that.

[Nate]

Right, the MPAA only judges harmful or inappropriate content. "Heartwrenching" isn't inappropriate. Besides, even at 15 or however old I was when I saw Lion King in theaters, I still cried when Mufasa died. Death isn't inappropriate; we as Christians should know that better than anyone.

Also, children under 17 can view an R-rated movie. They have to have a parent or guardian with them, that's all. NC-17 is the rating that says 17 and under not admitted, period, no matter who's with them. I remember when Schindler's List came out, our history teacher urged all of us to go see it, even though we were like 15 or 16, because of the message of the movie.

Finally, how "terrible" or "irreverant" a movie is shouldn't be cause for a higher rating, as statements like that are subjective. I think Twilight is a terrible movie but that doesn't mean it should be bumped up to an R rating just because it's terrible. That isn't really a content issue, it's more an opinion issue.

[danceljoy]

Sometimes it depends on the culture of the country. Personally I think ratings are indeed essential and ratings should be appropriately be made.

I think violence and death is fine. I don't find myself disturbed with it.

But sexual content is different. As an Asian, I don't get why so many western movies feature kissing couples in the middle of the crowd. And the worse thing is, its very passionate. Fanservice of course...

But there is one solution that is effective: ever since I was a kid, my parents implanted on my brain that I should cover my eyes in kissing scenes. Many of my friends are like that too. It's effective even if we're mature now, we cover our eyes instinctively. I remember one time when my music teacher made us watch Farinelli and I missed a lot of important scenes because I covered my eyes.

And of course I agree that R movies can be watched with adult supervision. And a responsible one of course. But personally, I think the ratings should start with music videos! I mean: look at all the pop- idols/ hip-hops idol's videos! They're just so...umm...sensual. And they're free to be watched!

[GhostontheNet]

1. The lobby shootout scene probably gave it most of the R rating. If u give then idea of storming a government building to an unstable pre-teen/teen then it's only inevitable what could happen afterwards.

If anything, I think this highlights the way the rating system is dependent upon mainstream society's standards more than anything else. Certainly it's not dependent upon an objective and universal standard of truth as regards who is ready for what, and when. In less technical civilizations, the age of 13 marks the full onset of adulthood with all the privileges that entails. Only with the 1950's did the cultural and historical phenomenon of the "teenager" appear, signifying as it does an awkward transitional period between childhood and adulthood. Consequently, as 13 year olds will be at different stages in this culturally enforced transitional period, a transition that can only be defined only in relation to themselves and their personal development, I think there is no real ground for generalization about what a 13 year old is or is not ready for. Honestly, I don't know where I would be now if I didn't watch Ghost in the Shell and Blood Reign: The Curse of Yoma when I was 12, and I'm enough of a film buff to know a good many films rated PG-13 and R that can, and do have a similar positive effect.

If anything has escaped the other critics of this thread, it is that sexual humor is still implied sexuality, and consequently out of frame. Anyway, considering teenagers are themselves undergoing a crucial stage in their sexual development, I think it's important that they have access to cultural information about sexuality through the media, even if some of that information is distorted. And as far as violence in the media goes, considering ours is a world that has been and is currently being torn apart by bloody imperialism and its tragic legacy, I think on some level we need violence in the media to aestheticize and synthesize this cultural data so we can come to terms with it as human beings. I would even go so far as to say that the denial of catharsis bears worse psychological and cultural effects than anything done by "violence in the media." We send children and teenagers so many mixed messages about their security and vulnerability in an uncertain world, and in tandem with the anxious freedoms and ensuing responsibilities brought by this period, this creates a lot of fear and anxiety. In my experience, nothing is more therapeutic to children and teenagers I know than a good horror film, because it helps them come to terms with this. A lot of the adults I know, on the other hand, are prone to serious freakouts because they have repressed these fears and anxieties to their unconscious and let them build pressure and intensity. So "should 13 year olds be watching some of this stuff?" I don't know, which 13 year olds are we talking about?

[Dr.Faust]

To be honest I quite hate the American rateing system. There needs to be more detals to there prodocs and previeus. One example When I wen't to buy BECK MCS it had a MA rateing but it did not state for what. Also check out some maungas the dont have drscrisphens of what are the contents in that manuga. The ESRB seems to do there jobs right but the TV raters( I dont know there offical name) Has shows such as The Real World, For the Love of/I Love "Whoever",ect all these shows have HUGE amonts of sexual content and theres not even so much as a worning lable on these shows. Most of the teenager that go to my high school watch these shows(I don't) and I don't think that its good for teens to be exposed to so much sexual content, But whatever I'm done withe TV any way.

[Corkyspaniel]

I agree, I think the standards for what constitutes PG-13 have gotten REALLY lax. Transformers definitely should have been rated R, but because Michael Bay is a bigshot he talked down the MPAA (or so I heard).

Transformers 2 was tamer content-wise. There was a lot of questionable stuff in there but I really can't think of anything that was explicit enough to warrant an R rating, unlike the first movie (the whole "Sam's happy time" thing alone was enough to warrant an R, there wasn't anything that bad in the second movie).

What I find interesting, and I can't claim credit for this (James Rolfe gets credit for pointing this out), roles are switching from what they used to be. It used to be most comedy movies were rated PG or PG-13, and most action flicks were rated R. Look at Alien, or Terminator, or Robocop. Now, most comedy movies are rated R, and most action movies are rated PG or PG-13.

I think the reason for this is related to what you're saying. Action movies are getting PG-13 ratings because the standards for what constitutes PG-13 is becoming less restrictive. Comedies nowadays seem to have a lot of sexual or grossout humor, which earns them an R rating (and then a lot of them have "UNRATED" slapped across the DVD cover).

I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing, although I do think it's very inappropriate to do, such as with Transformers which has kids' toys marketed for it, and kids love robots and stuff, so to have all that sexual humor is definitely out of line. It's part of the reason I hate Michael Bay and wish he hadn't gotten the rights to the movies in the first place.

Although interestingly the original Transformers movie, when shown in theaters, had two instances of swearing, one of which was edited out on the video release (Bumblebee's infamous "Oh s***, what are we gonna do now?" which made a lot of kids in the theaters go "He said what now?").

[color="PaleGreen"] I agree, Nate. I remember watching that at the library, coming home, quoting that line, and having my parents stare at each other like, "What are they showing kids these days?"
Really, though, I read books like "Sex, Lies, and the Media" and find out about the progressively worse movies. A long time ago, it was unheard of to see anyone kiss or for a pregnant woman to be on TV. The times they are a-changing.
[/color]

[ilikegir33]

PG doesn't equal emotional impact of that sort, it measures potentially harmful content. Yes, Marley and Me was a heartwrenching movie, but the system isn't designed to judge that material. Bad stuff happens. I mean, think about Bambi, think about Fox and the hound, think about any Don Bluth film from the 1980's. Bad stuff happens, and it may be good for Kids to see that from time to time. Don't throw them infront of that particular bus, but it isn't bad for kids to see that.

[quote="Nate (post: 1328739)"]Right, the MPAA only judges harmful or inappropriate content. "Heartwrenching" isn't inappropriate. Besides, even at 15 or however old I was when I saw Lion King in theaters, I still cried when Mufasa died. Death isn't inappropriate]

Thanks. It's true that even G-rated films (such as those Disney films you mentioned) have death in them, and that's definitely not considered inappropriate.

However, what I meant to say about Year One was that it simply had too much sexual/scatological humor for a PG-13, even after it was cut from R.